Social Work Doctoral Training Resources and Early-Career Outcomes: Variation across Sociostructural Positions

Enrollment in social work doctoral programs has increased in recent years. Diversity has increased alongside enrollment, with more women and historically minoritized racial and ethnic communities pursuing this degree. Alongside these shifts, doctoral students increasingly occupy diverse social and structural positions, including variation in caregiving responsibilities, first-generation status, international status, and employment demands. Drawing on intersectional frameworks, these intersecting identities are likely to shape not only students’ experiences within doctoral programs but also their access to and benefit from institutional resources and systems. Although prior research suggests that doctoral students generally receive access to scholarly community and academic mentorship, they often identify gaps in professional and technical guidance, as well as concern for their social and emotional wellbeing. Critical institutional supports during doctoral training play a central role in shaping early-career trajectories. However, extensive literature has largely examined student identities and programmatic resources in isolation, with limited attention to how social-structural indicators and institutional supports jointly shape key outcomes. The current exploratory study examined whether associations between sociostructural indicators and doctoral training resources were linked to academic productivity, job satisfaction, and mental health among a sample of 127 early-career social work faculty (75.4% female) in the United States. Participants completed a quantitative survey assessing two mentorship domains (professional/technical mentorship and scholarly academic/community mentorship), financial support, sociodemographic characteristics, academic productivity during doctoral training, current job satisfaction, and mental health. Research questions focused on (1) associations between mentorship resources and academic productivity, (2) associations with job satisfaction, and (3) associations with mental health, as well as whether these associations varied across sociostructural indicators. Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that, for academic productivity, sexual orientation and professional/technical mentorship were significantly associated with outcomes (B = 4.98, p = .003), such that the positive association between professional/technical mentorship and productivity was stronger for heterosexual participants. A marginal interaction between Pell Grant eligibility and doctoral financial support (B = -10.35, p = .054) suggested variation in the association between financial support and productivity by socioeconomic background. No significant interactions emerged for job satisfaction. Additionally, logistic regressions examining mental health indicated a significant interaction between gender and scholarly academic/community mentorship (B = 2.21, p = .036), such that the association differed by gender, with men perceiving greater benefits than women. Findings suggest that the links between doctoral training resources and early-career outcomes vary by sociostructural positions, particularly for academic productivity and mental health, but appear less pronounced for current job satisfaction. Results underscore the importance of examining how institutional supports operate differentially across groups rather than assuming uniform benefits. Future research should further investigate identity-by-resource interactions to better understand how doctoral programs can equitably support diverse trainees and facilitate successful transitions into early academic careers.